Gun Manufacturers Baffled and Frustrated by ATF Criteria

For a gun maker, getting a new model approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is a frustrating and unpredictable process.

Often time, nearly identical models are given different rulings, one’s considered legal while the other’s considered in violation with the law.

The question is, how does this happen?

Well, according to critics, there’s nothing uniform or consistent about the way in which the ATF approves a model for production (or states that it’s in accordance with the law).

Moreover, many critics argue that the regulations and standards by which the ATF evaluates the legality of new firearms are purposely vague and/or fluid, which allows for subjective and capricious rulings.

See, instead of having clearly explicated standards that are publicly available to all gun makers, the ATF relies on what some have argued is a secret and arbitrary review process.

This process is known as “letter rulings.”

Essentially, a gun maker sends his prototype to the ATF. The ATF evaluates it and sends the maker a private letter with the ruling enclosed. The ATF does not publicize any of the rulings. This way, there’s no way for a gun maker to know whether or not his ruling is consistent with previous interpretations of the federal code.

Is the ATF being unfairly critical of his model? Are there precedents established by judgments rendered on similar models? Has the ATF’s standards evolved over time on a particular model?

With the lack of publication of prior rulings and a “behind-closed-doors” evaluation process, those questions often remain unanswered.

Robert E. Sanders, an ATF official for 24 years who is now a North Carolina lawyer specializing in firearms matters, told the Washington Times that letter rulings are often “definitely contradictory and inconsistent,” but are necessary because the regulations being applied are ill-defined.

“It is hard to tell what ATF wants you to do without submitting your product and asking for a letter ruling,” he told the Washington Times. “You can’t tell what the agency has said in the past to others, because those letter rulings are generally secret. How could somebody know how to comply with the law?”

Sanders added that submitting a firearm for testing is a “costly and lengthy process” that could be streamlined if the ATF issued clear and detailed regulations.

He also noted that the ATF once issued a letter ruling that argued a 14-inch shoestring was a machine gun because it could be used to turn a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic weapon. Upon further review, the ATF rescinded the letter.

The lack of a standardized review process can be, as Sanders mentioned, costly to manufacturers.

Len Savage, a firearms designer and manufacturer in Georgia, has unfortunately learned how costly the ATF letter ruling process can be.

In July of 2005, he was told in a letter by the ATF that he could legally convert machine guns owned by law-abiding collectors into belt-fed weapons. Later, in April of 2006, the ATF overturned its decision “upon reconsideration.”

“It cost me $500,000 in orders,” he said, explaining the fact that he was forced to destroy several weapons he had built because ATF would not grandfather them.

Bill Akins, the inventor of the Akins Accelerator (a device that increases the firing speed of semi-automatic rifles to simulate fully autos), had a similar experience.

The ATF approved his device only to overturn that ruling at a later date leaving him with $500,000 of useless inventory. He filed a lawsuit against the ATF in 2008, but the lawsuit was rejected by district and appellate courts.

“An ATF letter opinion is worthless,” he told the Washington Times. “It is not law, and it can be changed at the whim of a bureaucrat.”

Several lawmakers have proposed legislation to help bring transparency to the ATF’s review process.

One of those lawmakers is Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA). On four occasions he has tried to introduce the Fairness in Firearms Testing Act into the House, a bill that would require the ATF to make video recordings of its firearm tests.

“Requiring the ATF to make video recordings of the testing and examination of firearms and ammunition — and allowing manufacturers access to the video documentation — will make it easier for manufacturers to contest and review testing decisions, bring consistency to the testing process, and leveling the playing field for the ATF and gun manufacturers, many of whom have been driven out of business by inconsistent and unfair testing procedures,”Gingrey told the Washington Times.

His latest version of the bill is now before a House Judiciary subcommittee and the House Ways and Means Committee (hopefully, this time, it gains some traction with other lawmakers).

“When the rules are subjective and continue to change, we cannot expect these business owners to comply with moving target regulations,” he added. “These inconsistent rulings from the bureau are confusing and result in a waste of time and resources.”

Post your Comments

EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THIS TWICE !! THE STATES OF THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT THE 50 STATES. THE ATF HAS NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE FEDERAL ZONE aka "not to exceed 10 miles square" CFR› Title 27 › Chapter I › Subchapter A › Part 1 › aka ATF
27 CFR 1.2 - Territorial extent.
• Authorities (U.S. Code)
§ 1.2
Territorial extent.
The provisions of this part are applicable to the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Tom Monnier That's what I meant from the top down. Obama is the first one that should go. Come November the American people are gonna make that happen. However we can't stop there. If we truly wan't a new system we have to get the rest of the Obamacrats out of office too. The future of America depends on it!

Just because you think he cant do it because of Congress, doesn't make me naive. He said that what he wants to do, not that he will beable, the rest of them want to increase regulations. I vote gun line, not party line.

Wayne Gilmore That's the problem. I want all those things to happen to, but Paul isn't the messiah that Obama thinks he is. He can't just flip a switch, create an executive order, and make all the problems go away. You have to be realistic in what you can achieve. Paul talks all these Utopian solutions, many of which I agree, but just like Obama promising his version of Utoipia, you can't overreach. Rome wasn't built in a day. I'd love to get rid of the IRS, ATF, dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Labor, Dept. of HUD, and a few others, but you can't do it overnight. You need support. Just saying you are going to do it isn't going to get it done without support, and that isn't just electing him as president. I'm not a Republican, either. I'm a Constitutional Conservative first, so you know I want most of the same things you want, but the way Paul is talking about it isn't going to happen, and not in one or two terms. If he got elected and started doing the reverse of Obama, meaning being just as arrogant about getting rid of stuff, he'd be a one term president, too, and then OUR movement will have been set back, as Obama's will be.

Brian Phillips I understand, but maybe, just maybe he can get us started back toward the right direction. I don't agree with everything the man says, nor do I believe he will get half of what he wants, but if he just gets a quarter of it, I believe will will start to head in the right direction again. Obama has always had an agenda to remove the rights of the people, and he has accomplished a lot, voted in to close Gitmo, instead he expands it and his power to imprison people. If Paul can just get the ATF rugulations back before 86, id be pretty happy.

I'm no longer sure were talking about the same thing, the man has never been a power grabber, nor do I think he will change, hes not changed a word for 20+ years. He got maybe 5 or 10 more years left. He want to give back the power to the states.

Wayne Gilmore 50% of the country will view getting rid of all these departments, and all these things he proposes as a radical power grab. Not a power grab in the style of Obama, but a power grab in that he would be perceived as a one man wrecking crew of the country. We didn't get to this point overnight, and we aren't going to fix it overnight, either. We have to change the minds and hearts of Americans. Educate them on the Constitution, and what it means to have limited government. Right now, 50% of Americans view democrats vs. republicans as Wash. Redskins vs. Dallas Cowboys. It's just two teams, to them, and they want their "team" to win. They have no concept of the Constitution, because it isn't taught in the public school system. Neither is American History, and that is just as important as learning what the Constitution says, and means. We have revisionist history, controlled by the liberals, and we need to change that. We need to get back to teaching truth, real truth.

I would do it in baby steps. First, overhaul the public sector unions structure. It's a conflict of interest for our government to bargain with unions using the Peoples money.
Then defund, eradicate, or overhaul the Dept. of Education. Their agenda is harming our children, and teaching them the wrong things.
Get rid of the ATF by transferring its responsibilities to the FBI. Combine other departments into one department, and then change it's responsibilities to exclude the responsibilities now given to HUD, Commerce, Labor and energy. Labor and Energy are departments created under Jimmy Carter, and haven't been around all that long (I was in High School).
Combining departments does a couple of things; it gets rid of a lot of spending, eliminates redundant responsibilities, and makes it easier to eliminate those responsibilities that harm America during the reconstruction.

That's not what I said. I'm all for getting rid of departments. But not all at once. Yes, many people do want to get rid of departments. But not all at once, and I'll bet you can't get a consensus on which ones to get rid of. EPA needs to go, but you'll have trouble getting a consensus on that one. Virtually all democrats, and many republicans won't want to get rid of it, because they don't know exactly what it is they do. They think, in large part, that EPA is actually concerned with protecting the environment, and they need to be educated.

I had decided not to comment to this again, but with the comment of they need to be educated. I just couldnt stay away. Why on earth would these people we elect that should know their job to start with need to be educated? If they are so desperate and lack basic skills of using a computer and google. Could they not do like the rest of us and go to the website. This is the crap people are tired of. Am I to wait for someone to go back to school so they can do the job the American people hired them to do in the first place. If they cant do the job, get someone who can!

I am referring to the People who are a product of the liberal education system. And don't think for a minute that everything you bring up on google is truth and accurate. It is also someone else's opinion. Once people start learning... you know what... nevermind. I give up. I can't educate people who are unwilling to learn, and have zero patience. Just know this; this country didn't get this way overnight, or even during Obama. It's taken 100 years of creeping liberalism in our school system for people to think the way they do now. it isn't going to be getting rid of everything all at once to correct it. It just isn't. Think on that for a while. I'm done with this. I am a working man with work to do, and not enough time to waste on this.

Brian Phillips I believe that the president can eliminate a bureau that belong to his cabinet without the consent of Congress, it isn't like trying to eliminate the DOJ that the ATF is a part of. I think that the ATF needs to go back to its origins and this crap would end.

Seems that they still don't know what they belong to, in Google ATF states "The ATF is a law enforcement organization within the United States Department of Treasury." but when you go to their site it says DOJ (which they moved to in 2003). The law enforcement part of ATF is DOJ, the tax part (it's original intent) is part of Treasury. They just split it up so that they could make it bigger.

The ATF is not protected by the Constitution, in fact it has no Constitutional authority to even exist. The absolute most that they could possibly be used for is a product safety agency. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are all legal products and should only be regulated to the extent of their quality of manufacturing.

I have a suggestion for the gun makers. Someone make an online database and every time they get a letter ruling, post it to the database so that other gun makers can see it. If this was done, with proper controls etc, it would cut into the ATF and make them start to clean up. I'm guessing the reason this hasn't been done is because the ATF probably doesn't like the idea, maybe even "forbids" it.

I say do it anyway. All gun makers should share every letter ruling they have ever had with the other makers. Soon enough things would change. (Probably after a few law suits.)

That was my first thought. The only reason I can think of NOT doing it is because the manufacturers think they'd be giving up a commercial advantage by sharing information. "Oh look! Ruger is trying to make a .17 hornet bullpup..."

Having had to deal personally with the ATF, I know first hand what a bunch of officious screw ups they are, they have no respect for thr rights of American citizens and apparently answer to no one for the things they do. They cost me my business, with all their actions predicated on a lie, and they do much worse.